4 ms·

Our author seems to be quite drastically mischaracterizing the intentions of what he calls the "contemporary left": >The contemporary left’s concern is with th

by cazum 8y ago

Our author seems to be quite drastically mischaracterizing the intentions of what he calls the "contemporary left": >The contemporary left’s concern is with the underlying biases that bolster the racism that remains. It seeks, as a way forward, a society not only without racist structures, but without racist thought, which, for one, can foster race-based disparities that eerily parallel those conditioned in the past by overt segregation. This, as someone who spends a lot of time both in a very liberal college and in lefty online "safe spaces", is an ideology I've never encountered. Leftists generally Subscribe to an ideology that explains material conditions as the force that causes struggle in a society. Those conditions usually being economic structures, but usually include specific things like the power structure of a police force, private ownership of prisons, the "war on drugs", etc. The author complains heavily about how "SJWs" call people White Supremacist too often, but doesn't give any specific example of this happening and why the label was inappropriate. In fact, nearly every one of the "examples" of leftist speech seems to be your average dismissive "laugh at the cuck cringe complication" quotes attributed without context to nobody in particular: >The new normal is, “If you don’t like it, cry loudly and then louder, because you’re always right and they’re just bad.” I don't actually think anybody really thinks this. I've never heard this ideology espoused by anybody, except anti-sjws, as they're sometimes referred to as, who are trying to strawman and discredit someone. The times I have heard people call people White Supremacist is, for example, when a white person starts arguing about IQ scores, which is an explicitly white supremacist argument, and uncontroversially so unless you're unfamiliar with WHY iq tests are inherently biased, in which case you might not see why the label is appropriate and will only see a lib getting mad for no reason. I believe the author has simply collected a few instances of college liberals losing their temper on camera and extrapolated that into an entire incoherent worldview without any analysis of what the leftist cucks actually believe. Additionally, the phrase "virtue signalling" is extremely sloppy. Is there any action done, aside from those done under the privacy of total anonymity that could not be motivationally attributed to wishing the signal virtue? Perhaps I'm virtue signalling for writing this reply. Maybe you're virtue signalling for upvoting it. Maybe the author is virtue signalling for having written the article about virtue signalling. Even if what he says about progressives was true, why would wishing to change the psychology of percieved white racists be "virtue signalling"?

setr 8y ago
Specifically regarding virtue signalling, im not sure you’re arguing anything beyond meaningless rhetoric. The claim simply amounts to “you say you believe in something, but your actions say otherwise, because you don’t actually treat it as a ‘cause’, but as social political stance”. See the term “champagne socialists”. It’s really easy to utilize something like “changing the psychology of racists” for virtue signalling. Or any other stance for that matter. Taking the stance isn’t at issue, but rather stopping there (having the opinion publicly, but not following through in any meaningful manner).
- cazum 8y ago
  I agree with the terms, I just don't see how the author has determined that progressives have universally decided to stop there, and not follow through in a meaningful manner. Deplatforming, for example, is meaningful praxis for a lot of lefties. I happen to think it's counter-productive, but just because I disagree with them, that doesn't now mean that the actions don't count and they are simply just champaigne socialist.
  - setr 8y ago
    The problem is that the champagne socialist does things too, to support his stated goal... just nothing useful. It just further entrenches his social position, but never actually the peoples he claims to help. That they do work does not ensure its meaningful; at a minimum it needs to somewhat justified...by something. Personally, I’ve yet to find a decent argument for deplatforming (it seems to go against every acceptable idealistic political stance; I mean, its fundamentally against freedom of speech, which is an absurd stance to be taking — and afaik, not a stance otherwise taken), which for me implies that not much thinking actually went into the operation as to whether it was something that should be done. Which is the behavior you’d expect... of a champagne socialist. Calling for big political events, possibly even organizing them, without considering whether this would actually support their cause in any real fashion.. because it doesn’t matter whether or not it does. It just needs to be interpreted as helping. Its just positioning. Ofc, this is also the behavior we associate with politicians, but thats another can of worms ;)

by cazum 8y ago

setr 8y ago

Specifically regarding virtue signalling, im not sure you’re arguing anything beyond meaningless rhetoric. The claim simply amounts to “you say you believe in something, but your actions say otherwise, because you don’t actually treat it as a ‘cause’, but as social political stance”. See the term “champagne socialists”. It’s really easy to utilize something like “changing the psychology of racists” for virtue signalling. Or any other stance for that matter. Taking the stance isn’t at issue, but rather stopping there (having the opinion publicly, but not following through in any meaningful manner).

cazum 8y ago
I agree with the terms, I just don't see how the author has determined that progressives have universally decided to stop there, and not follow through in a meaningful manner. Deplatforming, for example, is meaningful praxis for a lot of lefties. I happen to think it's counter-productive, but just because I disagree with them, that doesn't now mean that the actions don't count and they are simply just champaigne socialist.
- setr 8y ago
  The problem is that the champagne socialist does things too, to support his stated goal... just nothing useful. It just further entrenches his social position, but never actually the peoples he claims to help. That they do work does not ensure its meaningful; at a minimum it needs to somewhat justified...by something. Personally, I’ve yet to find a decent argument for deplatforming (it seems to go against every acceptable idealistic political stance; I mean, its fundamentally against freedom of speech, which is an absurd stance to be taking — and afaik, not a stance otherwise taken), which for me implies that not much thinking actually went into the operation as to whether it was something that should be done. Which is the behavior you’d expect... of a champagne socialist. Calling for big political events, possibly even organizing them, without considering whether this would actually support their cause in any real fashion.. because it doesn’t matter whether or not it does. It just needs to be interpreted as helping. Its just positioning. Ofc, this is also the behavior we associate with politicians, but thats another can of worms ;)